Key criteria in the allocation of pets after the separation of domestic partnerships
The question of the allocation of a jointly owned pet – especially a family dog – during a separation repeatedly occupies the courts. The decision of the Local Court Marburg dated June 18, 2024 (Ref.: 74 F 809/23 WH) provides current perspectives on this matter and shows that upon the dissolution of a non-marital partnership or marriage, the animal’s welfare is the decisive assessment standard and not solely ownership or the wishes of the former partners.
Legal situation and allocation principles for pets in household proceedings
Animals as ‘household items’ within the meaning of the German Civil Code (BGB)
The legal basis is Section 1568a (1) sentence 2 BGB, which also includes animals under the term of household items. After separation, a pet – regardless of whose name appears in the vaccination certificate or who registered with the dog tax office – can be allocated to the partner with whom the animal’s welfare can best be ensured. The court is guided, in particular, by the aspects of continuity, the scope of care, and by seeking to continue the animal’s established bond as gently as possible.
Significance of animal welfare
The courts explicitly clarify that allocation does not depend on strict ownership rights but primarily on the animal’s welfare. A purely schematic approach does not do justice to the character of animals as fellow creatures as stated in Section 90a BGB. Aspects such as the main place of residence, previous care, and emotional bonds therefore play a central role.
Developments in case law
The specific judgment of the Local Court Marburg
In the underlying case, both former partners wanted to keep what was originally a pet from their domestic partnership. The court based its decision primarily on the previous daily care routine: Who took care of the animal, who was responsible for walks, who had an evidently closer bond with the dog? The judge emphasized that while financial involvement in acquisition and upkeep should be considered, it must take a back seat to the animal’s welfare.
The fact that one partner was listed as the owner in official documents or had registered the dog with the local authorities was not decisive. What mattered was establishing which household member could reliably provide appropriate ongoing care and support for the animal, even under changed living circumstances. Special consideration was also given to the animal’s emotional state and its ability to adapt to new living environments.
No entitlement to a ‘shared model’
A 50/50 split of care time – comparable to the so-called ‘shared model’ in custody and contact law for joint children – was ruled out by the court. This was justified by the need for continuity and stability for the animal, which, as experience shows, cannot cope with the constant change of caregivers.
Practical implications for the parties
Significance for cases of separation
The decision makes it clear that in cases of separation involving shared pets, a realistic assessment of future care routines is paramount. Financial or registration arguments are secondary where the animal’s welfare is assessed differently. In the event of a dispute, the parties must explain in detail how and with whom the animal can continue to receive its usual care with minimal disruption.
Distinction from other scenarios
It was explicitly clarified that in the case of livestock kept in obedience, for example in (agricultural) businesses, different standards apply. The bond to people, the animal’s adaptability to changing environments, and the emotional relationship are much more formative for courts’ decisions in the case of pets.
Conclusion and outlook
With this current judgment, the firmly established case law is once again confirmed and further specified: The animal’s welfare is paramount when allocating a household dog after separation. The individual living circumstances and specific bonds of the animal remain highly relevant in each case – blanket solutions are generally ruled out.
Note: This is a decision specific to an individual case. Appeals are possible; furthermore, broader circumstances and developments in case law must be considered. The proceedings and the specific parties remain subject to applicable data protection and privacy laws. The information provided is based on the decision of the Local Court Marburg (Ref.: 74 F 809/23 WH).
For those facing similar questions regarding the allocation of pets after a separation, it can be advisable to become familiar with the possible legal options and the factors to be weighed. The Rechtsanwälte at MTR Legal are available to provide advice in this regard.
